Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I thought the “pro tip” was pretty dumb. I’ve never seen a resume with an IQ on it. I’ve never once considered putting my IQ on my resume, and it’s triple digits and everything. I’ve reviewed resumes as part of our program management team, and if we saw that we’d be... anti-impressed. And I work for a NASA contractor, so it’s not like we’re not looking for smart people.

Does anyone think this is actually a good idea?

P.S. I though the bit about the “anyone demanding an arts degree is too stupid to work for” to be pretty stupid in itself.

P.P.S. Maybe this guy is just trying to cut down on competition by whatever number of people take his advice.

What I have seen:
- photos of the person (yes, plural)
- multi-colour fonts in multiple fonts (for a management position in a corporate, no less)
- a whole section on their hobbies
- people tipping pretty much the entire buzzword bingo lexicon into their description of themselves: "I'm a results-driven detail-oriented team worker who catalyses colleagues and challenges paradigms etc etc..." Translation: "I'm unimaginative, have poor self-awareness, and am not very good at business writing."

__________________What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Everyone who knows of him just laughed and said "of *course* it's him!" For those who don't...feel free to scour the internet for various articles and response videos to him (I particularly recommend Shaun's responses on Youtube) for some real howlers.

Also, people who put their IQs on their resumes got filtered out by the front-line folks before we engineers even saw them.

What I have seen:
- photos of the person (yes, plural)
- multi-colour fonts in multiple fonts (for a management position in a corporate, no less)
- a whole section on their hobbies
- people tipping pretty much the entire buzzword bingo lexicon into their description of themselves: "I'm a results-driven detail-oriented team worker who catalyses colleagues and challenges paradigms etc etc..." Translation: "I'm unimaginative, have poor self-awareness, and am not very good at business writing."

It can be fun to go to an interview, realize you either don't want the job or will never get it, and start answering questions honestly.

"Do you work well with a team?"
Me: "Not really"

"How do like your sandwich cut, straight or diagonally?"
I actually laughed in their faces at that (they really asked me this), then said, "I never cut my sandwiches".

The look I got was worth it.

What I wanted to add but did not:
"Your stupid pseudo-psychology questions are not impressive and I think you're both lame. And your company is dumb"

As for IQ on a resume, ya that would probably come across bad, but only because the score is somewhat meaningless. You are supposed to sell yourself so saying good things is kinda the idea, but ya. No.

I can gauge a person's intelligence within a minute of speaking with them, and I don't need a score.

Agreed with all other posters. It would be foolish to put your IQ on your resume. Instead, you hint at it strongly by talking about your education, GPA (for those recently graduated college), and things you have done that prove you are smart.

Interestingly, my department head recently required all of us to take an "aptitude test", which was basically an IQ test. It had pattern recognition, reading comprehension, mental rotations, all sorts of IQ style questions. I'm not sure anyone took it very seriously, and we are somewhat suspicious of his motives. I think asking us to do it was probably a bad move, but he's the boss, so I at least hope I did well. (I'm sure I got most of the questions right that I answered, but it said right at the beginning that there probably wasn't enough time to finish the test, and I only answered 31 out of 50. I have no idea how that compares to others.)

I don't know mine, and I don't know why anyone would care. IQs measure quite accurately your ability to do IQ tests, but I doubt its utility for anything else.

It correlates very well with academic achievement. But by the time you're an adult looking for a job, you can usually point to the academic achievement, so there's not a lot of value added. It would be useful for college entrance, but we've already got tests which basically do the same thing.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Those raw scores are then converted to some standard called "IQ", basically some kind of percentile-related thing, rather than being stated as "a person with an IQ of 130 can solve 22% more problems than a person of average intellect".

But there is a certain anti-intellectualism around. Probably brought on by the intellectuals of moderate high IQ who think they ARE smarter than anybody. An advanced degree in a soft science does not mean they can relate in the physical world. And if they ask my IQ, I tell them. They usually fall silent.

If I was writing a resume, I think I would discuss "being able to think in concepts" rather than an IQ number. But know what? I've never written a resume yet, and never will. Retired for 15 years.

__________________Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

I've never heard of that one either. But my instinctive response is "Diagonals are straight."

They may have said horizontal or vertical, I couldn't remember as I typed that. They may have said straight too, wish I'd thought of that answer Or maybe, "I fillet mine"

It was a graphics job doing greeting cards I think. Perhaps the correct answer might be, "Well I'd consider the shape of the bread and imagine the harmony I could achieve between separate pieces. I would cut it multiple times, totally asymmetrical, and I'd leave the crust as a reminder of how these items all are tied together, yet occupying their own separate spaces"

I've had my IQ tested twice. Once as a kid, the other, hell I don't remember exactly. Older I also did an online MENSA test once for fun. They all returned similar results. Leaving myself wide open here for wisecracks I know haha.

I also knew a woman who was a licensed(?) IQ Test errr Tester or Administrator. She always wanted to test me but I never did it. I was afraid it might be lower than the others

She was also a psychologist and very intelligent herself. At the same time she had some odd woo-ish related side-specialties.

I think IQ tests have some merit but it's a very very general assessment of --- stuff. I think a person with an IQ of 160 probably will usually be pretty intelligent while a person scoring 70 will usually not be. <shrug>

Then I guess I'm proof it doesn't work. My highest academic achievement was high school chemistry. Hmm,maybe that is why they don't ask for IQ scores?

I said very well, not perfectly.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

It correlates very well with academic achievement. But by the time you're an adult looking for a job, you can usually point to the academic achievement, so there's not a lot of value added. It would be useful for college entrance, but we've already got tests which basically do the same thing.

I've seen a rare one mention membership of MENSA, a lot stating their religion, but not one with an IQ score.

I generally counsel people against stating their religion, but frequently say they should make their religion known if they think it will help them stand out. Thus, when my mother was honored by the local Bar Association, her CV stressed that she was the founding president of the local Women's Bar. When she was honored that same year by Jewish Family Service, her CV featured that she'd been the founding VP and second president of her synagogue.

A resume should ideally make the reader say, "I really want to meet this person."

Agreed with all other posters. It would be foolish to put your IQ on your resume. Instead, you hint at it strongly by talking about your education, GPA (for those recently graduated college), and things you have done that prove you are smart.

Interestingly, my department head recently required all of us to take an "aptitude test", which was basically an IQ test. It had pattern recognition, reading comprehension, mental rotations, all sorts of IQ style questions. I'm not sure anyone took it very seriously, and we are somewhat suspicious of his motives. I think asking us to do it was probably a bad move, but he's the boss, so I at least hope I did well. (I'm sure I got most of the questions right that I answered, but it said right at the beginning that there probably wasn't enough time to finish the test, and I only answered 31 out of 50. I have no idea how that compares to others.)

Not an IQ test, but I did take a federal one back in the 70's that was basically containing a 30 problem math test as part of it. Word problems were 15 of them and the other 15 were +. -, X and /. On each of the parts of the test my score was 103 to 105 (out of 100) with a 5 point veteran preference. Most people in the room did not finish the math one on time. The almost certain reason is that I was likely the only one who did the word problems and then (in order) first subtraction, then addition, then division and last multiplication. The shortest number in any question had nine digits and the the longest had 14 or 15. Addition had roughly 5 to 10 long numbers in them. Anyone curious why my score on that section was as high as on the other 2, feel free to ask!!!!!

Those raw scores are then converted to some standard called "IQ", basically some kind of percentile-related thing, rather than being stated as "a person with an IQ of 130 can solve 22% more problems than a person of average intellect".

But there is a certain anti-intellectualism around. Probably brought on by the intellectuals of moderate high IQ who think they ARE smarter than anybody. An advanced degree in a soft science does not mean they can relate in the physical world. And if they ask my IQ, I tell them. They usually fall silent.

If I was writing a resume, I think I would discuss "being able to think in concepts" rather than an IQ number. But know what? I've never written a resume yet, and never will. Retired for 15 years.

I thought the “pro tip” was pretty dumb. I’ve never seen a resume with an IQ on it. I’ve never once considered putting my IQ on my resume, and it’s triple digits and everything. I’ve reviewed resumes as part of our program management team, and if we saw that we’d be... anti-impressed. And I work for a NASA contractor, so it’s not like we’re not looking for smart people.

Does anyone think this is actually a good idea?
....

Without reading all the responses, the first thought I have is that anybody could put down anything. It's like claiming you have a college degree without listing the college, the major and other information that could be confirmed. There is no standard IQ test or testing authority. The other thing is that you don't know what the business is looking for: whatever IQ you claim, the employer could consider it too low or too high for that particular job. Just as applicants can be rejected for being "overqualified," they can be rejected for being too smart (they won't fit in, they'll quit soon, etc.).

If you insist on claiming "I'm smart!" on your resume, you might join Mensa and list it. But even that would be seen as pretty ridiculous by most people, especially in industries where there are a lot of smart people.

Job performance
According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[107] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6.[108] The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for.[9] While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[109] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.[107] That said, for highly qualified activities (research, management) low IQ scores are more likely to be a barrier to adequate performance, whereas for minimally-skilled activities, athletic strength (manual strength, speed, stamina, and coordination) are more likely to influence performance.[107] The prevailing view among academics is that it is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates job performance. This view has been challenged by Byington & Felps (2010), who argued that "the current applications of IQ-reflective tests allow individuals with high IQ scores to receive greater access to developmental resources, enabling them to acquire additional capabilities over time, and ultimately perform their jobs better."[110]

In establishing a causal direction to the link between IQ and work performance, longitudinal studies by Watkins and others suggest that IQ exerts a causal influence on future academic achievement, whereas academic achievement does not substantially influence future IQ scores.[111] Treena Eileen Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson write that general cognitive ability, but not specific ability scores, predict academic achievement, with the exception that processing speed and spatial ability predict performance on the SAT math beyond the effect of general cognitive ability.[112]

The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Instead of saying "resistant to serpent poison" say "Built up a resistance to serpent poison through careful application and dedicated planning".

Wouldn't it be shorter and to the point to simply write, 'Practicing Pentecostalist'?

A friend of mine in the SAS (the airline, not the corps) told me that applicants with IQ scores above a certain number were considered unstable members of staff and therefore not hired, but that was 30 years ago.

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

The other thing is that you don't know what the business is looking for: whatever IQ you claim, the employer could consider it too low or too high for that particular job. Just as applicants can be rejected for being "overqualified," they can be rejected for being too smart (they won't fit in, they'll quit soon, etc.).

I thought the “pro tip” was pretty dumb. I’ve never seen a resume with an IQ on it. I’ve never once considered putting my IQ on my resume, and it’s triple digits and everything. I’ve reviewed resumes as part of our program management team, and if we saw that we’d be... anti-impressed. And I work for a NASA contractor, so it’s not like we’re not looking for smart people.

Does anyone think this is actually a good idea?

P.S. I though the bit about the “anyone demanding an arts degree is too stupid to work for” to be pretty stupid in itself.

P.P.S. Maybe this guy is just trying to cut down on competition by whatever number of people take his advice.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone with an IQ under 100 is a talking animal.........

Absolutely. You couldn't be more correct.

Of course, everyone with 100 and above is a talking animal too (always assuming, of course, that they can talk).

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

You clearly think this a mistake. I, on the other hand, wouldn't consider I know enough about someone to employ them unless I knew something of their hobbies, and life away from work. Someone whose hobby was designing and constructing radio controlled submarines, for instance, might well be a more creative and problem-solving individual than someone whose hobbies were "watching TV soaps and playing computer games". If you want a dull automaton for your company, employ the latter. If you want someone who can think and do, employ the former.

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

You clearly think this a mistake. I, on the other hand, wouldn't consider I know enough about someone to employ them unless I knew something of their hobbies, and life away from work. Someone whose hobby was designing and constructing radio controlled submarines, for instance, probably has their mind on waterproof glues and is only working for you to steal parts for their subs. Someone whose hobbies were "watching TV soaps and playing computer games" on the other hand has no life and will happily do overtime for free as a break from their humdrum lives. If you want a distracted thief for your company, employ the former. If you want someone who will devote themselves to work , employ the latter.

What I have seen:
- photos of the person (yes, plural)
- multi-colour fonts in multiple fonts (for a management position in a corporate, no less)- a whole section on their hobbies
- people tipping pretty much the entire buzzword bingo lexicon into their description of themselves: "I'm a results-driven detail-oriented team worker who catalyses colleagues and challenges paradigms etc etc..." Translation: "I'm unimaginative, have poor self-awareness, and am not very good at business writing."

Why was this an issue? Excessive detail is a no-no, but "hobbies or interests" is a pretty standard thing to include on a CV in the UK.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.